Why do the big names in atheism freeze up when debating William Lane Craig? - Think Atheist2015-08-02T22:32:13Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/why-do-the-big-names-in-atheism-freeze-up-when-debating-william?x=1&id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1200957&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThat is correct. In my opinio…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-27:1982180:Comment:12396572012-12-27T15:44:48.385ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<blockquote><p>That is correct. In my opinion, yes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Understood. I'll reserve judgement for now on the value of your unsupported opinion.</p>
<blockquote><p>But as I said, his primary focus was on Abrahamic religious history and that isn't my thing. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hitch focused on many aspects of theism and religion. But assuming he focused on something that wasn't your thing, how can you say you know more about it than he does?</p>
<blockquote><p>The vindication of…</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>That is correct. In my opinion, yes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Understood. I'll reserve judgement for now on the value of your unsupported opinion.</p>
<blockquote><p>But as I said, his primary focus was on Abrahamic religious history and that isn't my thing. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hitch focused on many aspects of theism and religion. But assuming he focused on something that wasn't your thing, how can you say you know more about it than he does?</p>
<blockquote><p>The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. That is the meaning of the Bible. I'm pretty sure Craig doesn't have a clue, </p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you don't know what Craig believes, but you're pretty sure he doesn't have a clue. </p>
<blockquote><p><span>but you could present any of these guys cases before me and I can show you what I mean.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>No, thank you. They can make their own cases, the same as you. </span></p>
<blockquote><p>Hitch didn't know the Bible other than what he got from apostate Christianity, which is mostly pagan bullshit anyway </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I presume a membership in the pagan bullshit apostate Christianity club requires only that the applicant interpret the Bible differently than you do? </p>
<blockquote><p><span>and Dawkins and Craig are idiots.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Still no specifics?</p>
<blockquote><p>Probably most of [Harris' and Dawkins' work is without substance].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Probably? Are you guessing because you haven't read any of their work?</p>
<blockquote><p>Present their argument at its best to me and we can talk about it, </p>
</blockquote>
<p>We come to it at last: you're unfamiliar with them. </p>
<blockquote><p><span>but I don't have to explain my opinion to you. It is what it is.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>You've already explained your opinion. They're candy-peddling idiots who probably lack substance, are absolutely unworthy of respect, and don't know as much as you do. No further elaboration is required, thank you. Indeed, your opinion is what it is. </p>
<blockquote><p>Actually, the only thing that I did say about Krauss is that I've never heard of him.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Presumably you're unfamiliar with Krauss' work, in addition to not knowing his name. Since you've left him off your idiot list then implicitly that was the one remaining difference-maker.</p>
<blockquote><p>This is a debate?! [Laughs] I was asked a question and I gave my opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You're right. I should have said, "Your honesty is appreciated but admitting ignorance of a debate is a feeble way to enter <strong>a conversation about</strong> it."</p>
<blockquote><p>I'm tempted to provide the aforementioned Hitchens response to the audience, but lets give it some time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Okay. When you're ready to provide specifics on your stinging dismissals of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Krauss, please do proceed. I'm looking forward to it!</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> "I'm sure Hitchens' knowledge…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-27:1982180:Comment:12390902012-12-27T02:07:34.630ZDavid Hensonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidHenson
<p>"I'm sure Hitchens' knowledge of gnomes was similarly "limited" to history and tradition rather than first-hand experience."</p>
<p>Well . . . there was that book tour with Al Sharpton, that has to count for something. Hitch must have been drunk when he signed up for that gig.</p>
<p>"So you do. But Hitch didn't. Is that it?"</p>
<p>That is correct. In my opinion, yes.</p>
<p>"You indicate below that you don't follow these debates. So on what basis do you assess Hitch's knowledge of the…</p>
<p>"I'm sure Hitchens' knowledge of gnomes was similarly "limited" to history and tradition rather than first-hand experience."</p>
<p>Well . . . there was that book tour with Al Sharpton, that has to count for something. Hitch must have been drunk when he signed up for that gig.</p>
<p>"So you do. But Hitch didn't. Is that it?"</p>
<p>That is correct. In my opinion, yes.</p>
<p>"You indicate below that you don't follow these debates. So on what basis do you assess Hitch's knowledge of the Bible? Does your illiteracy include his books and essays or have you restricted your non-following to his debates exclusively?"</p>
<p>I used to catch a few of his debates, and I rather enjoyed some of them, for example when he would tell someone in the audience to fuck off. But as I said, his primary focus was on Abrahamic religious history and that isn't my thing. I seen him get water boarded and also enjoyed much of his political commentary, though I am apolitical. I just thought he was an incredibly honest, intelligent man of integrity.</p>
<p>"Okay David, I'll bite. What is the true meaning of the Bible which you know and Craig doesn't?"</p>
<p>The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. That is the meaning of the Bible. I'm pretty sure Craig doesn't have a clue, but you could present any of these guys cases before me and I can show you what I mean. Hitch didn't know the Bible other than what he got from apostate Christianity, which is mostly pagan bullshit anyway and Dawkins and Craig are idiots.</p>
<p>"Which aspect of Harris' and Dawkins' work is without substance? Be specific."</p>
<p>Probably most of it. Look, the theists have TV Evangelists and the Atheists have Dawkins and Harris and Steve Wells and probably a host of lesser notables out there peddling their candy to the masses. You won't catch me defending TV Evangelists. Present their argument at its best to me and we can talk about it, but I don't have to explain my opinion to you. It is what it is.</p>
<p>"Or does your familiarity consist merely of having personally heard of them? It sounds like it does, since you dismiss Krauss apparently on that basis alone."</p>
<p>Actually, the only thing that I did say about Krauss is that I've never heard of him.</p>
<p>"Your honesty is appreciated but admitting ignorance of a debate is a feeble way to enter it."</p>
<p>This is a debate?! [Laughs] I was asked a question and I gave my opinion.</p>
<p>"Or we might as well ask you. You've apparently pulled off stinging dismissals of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Krauss, despite not following them or including any specifics whatsoever. For good measure, you've also chastened Craig based on your superior but likewise unspecified knowledge of the Bible."</p>
<p>So I'm asking. On what basis do you make these assertions? Be specific."</p>
<p>I'm tempted to provide the aforementioned Hitchens response to the audience, but lets give it some time.</p> I had a great deal of respect…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-26:1982180:Comment:12390382012-12-26T13:23:50.073ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<blockquote><p>I had a great deal of respect for Hitchens, but his knowledge of God is limited to religious tradition, more specifically, of an historic nature. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm sure Hitchens' knowledge of gnomes was similarly "limited" to history and tradition rather than first-hand experience.</p>
<blockquote><p><span>He doesn't know the Bible very well.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you do. But Hitch didn't. Is that it?</p>
<p>You indicate below that you don't follow these debates.…</p>
<blockquote><p>I had a great deal of respect for Hitchens, but his knowledge of God is limited to religious tradition, more specifically, of an historic nature. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm sure Hitchens' knowledge of gnomes was similarly "limited" to history and tradition rather than first-hand experience.</p>
<blockquote><p><span>He doesn't know the Bible very well.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you do. But Hitch didn't. Is that it?</p>
<p>You indicate below that you don't follow these debates. So on what basis do you assess Hitch's knowledge of the Bible? Does your illiteracy include his books and essays or have you restricted your non-following to his debates exclusively?</p>
<blockquote><p>But then again, the same could be said of Craig. He comes from the religious tradition which has transmogrified the meaning of the Bible. Apostate Christianity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Okay David, I'll bite. What is the true meaning of the Bible which you know and Craig doesn't? </p>
<blockquote><p>I have absolutely no respect for Harris or Dawkins. There is no substance between the two. Krauss I've never heard of. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which aspect of Harris' and Dawkins' work is without substance? Be specific.</p>
<p>Or does your familiarity consist merely of having personally heard of them? It sounds like it does, since you dismiss Krauss apparently on that basis alone. </p>
<blockquote><p>I really don't follow those sorts of debates though, to be honest.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your honesty is appreciated but admitting ignorance of a debate is a feeble way to enter it. </p>
<blockquote><p>Might as well ask the cat or watch the History channel.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Or we might as well ask you. You've apparently pulled off stinging dismissals of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Krauss, despite not following them or including any specifics whatsoever. For good measure, you've also chastened Craig based on your superior but likewise unspecified knowledge of the Bible.</p>
<p>So I'm asking. On what basis do you make these assertions? Be specific. </p>
<p></p> I had a great deal of respect…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-26:1982180:Comment:12390212012-12-26T07:47:49.434ZDavid Hensonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidHenson
<p>I had a great deal of respect for Hitchens, but his knowledge of God is limited to religious tradition, more specifically, of an historic nature. He doesn't know the Bible very well. But then again, the same could be said of Craig. He comes from the religious tradition which has transmogrified the meaning of the Bible. Apostate Christianity.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no respect for Harris or Dawkins. There is no substance between the two. Krauss I've never heard of. </p>
<p>I really don't…</p>
<p>I had a great deal of respect for Hitchens, but his knowledge of God is limited to religious tradition, more specifically, of an historic nature. He doesn't know the Bible very well. But then again, the same could be said of Craig. He comes from the religious tradition which has transmogrified the meaning of the Bible. Apostate Christianity.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no respect for Harris or Dawkins. There is no substance between the two. Krauss I've never heard of. </p>
<p>I really don't follow those sorts of debates though, to be honest. Might as well ask the cat or watch the History channel.</p> I know what you mean about Hi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-12-21:1982180:Comment:12374582012-12-21T18:34:13.295ZStuart Ingrouillehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/StuartIngrouille
<p>I know what you mean about Hitch and Krauss, but I thought Harris did rather well. I take on pretty much all of Craig's arguments in my <a href="http://www.unbelievable-online.net/" target="_blank">book</a>, if you are interested.</p>
<p>Craig always gets the first word. I wouldn't mind betting it is prerequisite for him agreeing to debate. As you say, he always sets up the parameters and then criticizes those who digress from them. Arrogant.</p>
<p>Dawkins did debate Craig - in Pueblo, New…</p>
<p>I know what you mean about Hitch and Krauss, but I thought Harris did rather well. I take on pretty much all of Craig's arguments in my <a href="http://www.unbelievable-online.net/" target="_blank">book</a>, if you are interested.</p>
<p>Craig always gets the first word. I wouldn't mind betting it is prerequisite for him agreeing to debate. As you say, he always sets up the parameters and then criticizes those who digress from them. Arrogant.</p>
<p>Dawkins did debate Craig - in Pueblo, New Mexico.<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8" target="_blank">Link</a></p> RE: "if God does not exist...…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-21:1982180:Comment:12147122012-11-21T16:25:50.365Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>RE: "if God does not exist...then our life has no purpose" - absolutely it does! First, there is Nature's purpose, the built-in Prime Directive with which eons of evolution have imbued us - the drive to continue the species.</p>
<p>Then there are all of the myriad purposes that we, as individuals, bring to it. You, for example, have clearly decided that your purpose is to be a pain in the ass, and may I say, that you are performing it VERY successfully! (<img alt="=; talk to the hand" src="http://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo39.gif"></img> No need to thank me…</p>
<p>RE: "if God does not exist...then our life has no purpose" - absolutely it does! First, there is Nature's purpose, the built-in Prime Directive with which eons of evolution have imbued us - the drive to continue the species.</p>
<p>Then there are all of the myriad purposes that we, as individuals, bring to it. You, for example, have clearly decided that your purpose is to be a pain in the ass, and may I say, that you are performing it VERY successfully! (<img src="http://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo39.gif" alt="=; talk to the hand"/>No need to thank me --)</p>
<p>RE: "Do you really think all there is, has no cause <span>?</span>" - Good grief no, Charlie Brown, where would you ever get an idea like that? <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Everything</span> has a cause, but we see no evidence that a supernatural spirit had any part in it.</p>
<p>What is clear to me, is that we possess an ability that you do not - we can, without the slightest modicum of guilt, say, "I don't know --"</p>
<p></p> No, if god doesn't exist, and…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-21:1982180:Comment:12146142012-11-21T16:04:12.222ZKris Khttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KrisK
<p>No, if god doesn't exist, and our life ends when we die physically (is there another way to die?), then our life has purpose in the physical universe in which we live. Everything will end in the grave. What you do good or bad today, will matter to those who still live. Eventually, it might not matter but so what? It matters now.</p>
<p>If my parents exist (which they actually do), and created me, then they had a reason to create me. Why is that reason not acceptable to you? If god exists and…</p>
<p>No, if god doesn't exist, and our life ends when we die physically (is there another way to die?), then our life has purpose in the physical universe in which we live. Everything will end in the grave. What you do good or bad today, will matter to those who still live. Eventually, it might not matter but so what? It matters now.</p>
<p>If my parents exist (which they actually do), and created me, then they had a reason to create me. Why is that reason not acceptable to you? If god exists and created the universe (excluding earth here since it's special because it was created for us to live on), then what exactly was his reason to create it all?</p>
<p>The evidence of god's existence is obscure, lacking in evidence, and against real evidence. See around you. All of it was caused by the big bang - I don't see any evidence for god in it. The big bang is the cause of the universe. It's not important at that point if it's irrational thinking to say that it all arose by chance from inanimate matter - it's what we observe.</p> Well we certainly didn't aris…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-21:1982180:Comment:12146132012-11-21T15:58:26.959ZColleenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Colleen236
Well we certainly didn't arise in our current complex form - yet you mentioned thinking and self-awareness. The only logical conclusion was that you were referring to evolution.
Well we certainly didn't arise in our current complex form - yet you mentioned thinking and self-awareness. The only logical conclusion was that you were referring to evolution. why isn't this enough? I don'…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-21:1982180:Comment:12147072012-11-21T15:51:49.038ZAngelohttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Angelo
<p><span style="color: #ffffff; line-height: 12.800000190734863px; background-color: #2e2e2e;">why isn't this enough? I don't think that we arose by random chance alone - this, as I stated before, is an oversimplification of evolution.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ffffff; line-height: 12.800000190734863px; background-color: #2e2e2e;">Sorry, but the evolution theory is not applied to abiogenesis......</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ffffff; line-height: 12.800000190734863px; background-color: #2e2e2e;">why isn't this enough? I don't think that we arose by random chance alone - this, as I stated before, is an oversimplification of evolution.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #ffffff; line-height: 12.800000190734863px; background-color: #2e2e2e;">Sorry, but the evolution theory is not applied to abiogenesis......</span></p> This sentiment is so sad to m…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-21:1982180:Comment:12148102012-11-21T15:45:21.388ZColleenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Colleen236
This sentiment is so sad to me. If everything ends when I die, then I am forgetting about this vast wonderful world and the people around me. It snd they will continue on after me. I look around and see an amazing, beautiful world full of life and think - why isn't this enough? I don't think that we arose by random chance alone - this, as I stated before, is an oversimplification of evolution.
This sentiment is so sad to me. If everything ends when I die, then I am forgetting about this vast wonderful world and the people around me. It snd they will continue on after me. I look around and see an amazing, beautiful world full of life and think - why isn't this enough? I don't think that we arose by random chance alone - this, as I stated before, is an oversimplification of evolution.